mfc_ca_getTransactions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds the small fact that both automatic and manual linked-service data are included, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, date-range limits, authentication needs, or response format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is compact and front-loaded with the action and resource, and the parenthetical '自動連携・手動とも' adds a useful scope distinction without wasted words. While more content is needed elsewhere, the structure itself is clean and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 14-parameter API with no output schema and no annotations, one high-level sentence is not enough for reliable invocation. Missing context includes required date semantics, pagination defaults, office_code auth requirements, and what the returned transaction list actually contains.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 21%, and the description contributes nothing about the 14 parameters. Required date fields, filters like side/content/value_min/value_max, office_code requirements, and pagination are all left unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the sparse schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('取得') and resource ('連携サービスで収集された明細一覧'), clearly identifying a read operation over transaction line items collected via the linked service. It is distinguishable from siblings like mfc_ca_getJournals, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only usage context is that the list includes both automatic and manual collection via the linked service. There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as mfc_ca_getJournals, and no exclusions or conditions such as API-key authentication requirements.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.